Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

[TinyCrendon]

<new forum etiquette>
Indeed sir BB, that is a fine and interesting article. I would hasten to add one note of caution. Eventually the oil from Iraq will be pumped by someone.

It would not surprise me that increases in Iraqi oil come in 2 or 3 years time, at that time holding down the price, but only for a short while.

Iraq's stated reserves, which in my humble opinion are false, would supply the world's current demand for four years. So it is all somewhat of a band aid innit, sirrah.

yours in oil
Mr AP.

 

[bigfish]

THE BUSH/CHENEY ENERGY STRATEGY:

A Paper Prepared for the Second Annual Meeting of the Association for Study of Peak Oil Paris, France, 26-27 May 2003.

By Michael T. Klare Professor of Peace and World Security Studies Hampshire College, Amherst, MA 01002 USA (mklare@hampshire.edu)

As is widely known, the single most important step toward increased domestic oil production proposed by the NEP was the initiation of drilling on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a vast, untouched wilderness area in northeastern Alaska. This proposal has generated enormous controversy in the United States because of its deleterious impact on the environment; but it has also allowed the White House to argue that the Administration is committed to a policy of energy independence. However, careful examination of the Cheney report leads to entirely different conclusion. Aside from the ANWR proposal, there is nothing in the NEP that would contribute to a significant decline in U.S. dependence on imported petroleum. In fact, the very opposite is true: the basic goal of the Cheney plan is to increase the flow of oil from foreign suppliers to the United States.

source

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

This also from ICH: (cheers BF)

Smoking Gun: The CIA's Interest in Peak Oil

A growing consensus of petroleum geologists places this pivotal event in the mid-range period of 2006 to 2015. (3) From a certain perspective, the amount of time in dispute is not of great significance: whether we have a year or two or a decade or two before the supply of oil can no longer meet demand is relatively trivial from a historical, analytical point of view (though of considerable significance for billions of individual humans needing to make plans for the years ahead); the result in either case will be the same - a slow-motion global economic and industrial collapse.

The 1977 CIA document shows clear and detailed awareness of oil issues, including depletion, extraction technologies, pipelines, areas of likely new discovery, the quality of existing reserves, and the dynamics of the global oil market. The CIA has obviously been studying oil very carefully for some time and must therefore understand the issue of global oil peak. This begs the questions: Does the Agency have a strategy for dealing with this impending mega-event? Or is the Agency's job merely to provide information, and allow the current Administration to formulate policy?

Why, Mr. Porter, Sir!

Might I be so bold as to suggest that it may be worthy of your good selves reflection to ponder who was there pumping the stuff before the seps turned up!

Indeed, my good Sir, one might venture that their interests in the h-aforementioned region might lead to more unwanted attention.


The curse of Oil

 

[Jessiedog]

Gentlemen!

This thread remains one of the most informative and good natured to date. I sincerely commend you all.

Thankyou!



Woof

 

[nanoespresso]

Adam and Bandit,

Why good sirs! Such splendidly informed commentary. Please, though, if I may be so bold, a retort?

Adam, if as you suggest, Iraq’s oil reserves are really as miniscule as you would have us believe, than does this not throw a spanner in your theory of the Iraq war being perpetrated solely to control OPEC? After all, I highly doubt the neo-con/oilmen think-tanks are less well informed than you on such matters.

But more curiously is the underlying theme in all of these posts which irks me. This thread is riddled with criticism directed towards our ‘economy’ in how it ‘values’ oil, but simultaneously lambastes those who are responsible for energy policy of threatening the survival of that very economy.

Surely the self-destruction of something evil is good, no?

Or perhaps, for all your posturing, and rambling, deep down you appreciate the benefits of a market economy, and doubt that such a civilization could be maintained without it?

What I find particularly perplexing is this notion that a market based economy cannot come to grips with the notion of limited fossil fuels, but somehow, an alternative can. To quote from bigfish’s ‘excellent’ link:

The peaking of production means the further growth of energy demand, and thus of the global capitalist economy, is physically impossible

Ah.. but a socialist or anarchist economy will be ‘physically possible’? I must remember to contact Chomsky at znet and ask him how he plans on ‘change[ing] the 1st law of thermodynamics’.

 

[TinyCrendon]

Forsooth young Nanzarote...

Iraqi reserves are not miniscule, they are just not true. Even at stated levels they would feed the world for four years (assuming there was no other oil) so they are neither tiny nor some kind of great saviour. Its the misreporting of Kirkuk for example which is so daft...(already pumped 15.7bn b out of 16.1bn b) for example.

So as regards the USA and a few (3 or 4) super-massive oil cos controlling the oil supply its still well worth it, certainly in the medium term, for them. Not for the dead 10,000 or so...but anyway. (i sidetrack).

-----------------
Re valuing oil and economies. Oil is certainly of value, but it depends to whom. People even in the optimistic side of the oil industry talk about production peaks in 25 years (ie not now or by 2010) with a kind of glibness. Big surges in oil prices will cripple the weakest nations first, that again is real people. Not some war game to secure lubricant for one particular country, with spin offs for others.
-----------------

The valuation of oil and the actions taken upon it are merely symptomatic of an economic system that is centralising all the time and whose central resources are running out.
------------------

I dont for one minute think that economic collapse would bring about change. Change for whom? I dont think that would be beneficial, I prefer democracy and change. But real democracies, not oligarchies like we have now (i sidetrack once again).
--------------------

`Rambling and posturing`!! - steady on sir, no need for such language. You like to write yourself...what happned to ones fine manners !!?? No one says that about you.
--------------------

Neither me nor The Chom are advocates of socialism or anarchism.
There are many strands of economics, not just this one fundementalist line that we have to leave things to `markets`tm. which is both untrue (as `markets` are regulated and created by the powerful) and unproven (see the IMF report in March, every one of their initiatives has failed: Kenneth Rogoff).
Im not a huge fan of his but look at people like Joeseph Stiglitz to see that there are alternatives even in a very liberal wishy washy sense, there are as many economic alternatives as we would like.

As an example, the market liked the power cuts in America...it liked them. Why? Because the US couldnt use fuel during them, hence it had to store fuel, hence futures prices actually fell. Likewise the market likes the idea of huge fuel prices, well it can at least live with them, after all it will make huge liquidity (mainly for the oil cos) when all those tiny fields are at last worth extracting. So the market tm is driving the world towards incredible crisis. But the last place that crisis will hit is the USA and Europe...

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Nano,

Sorry, no time to post a proper response atm, but this might help clarify my position:

EC310 Conventional economic policy uses economic growth, inflation, balance of payments and unemployment as 'economic indicators', the normal criteria against which progress is measured. Although it is the most usually quoted indicator, gross national product (GNP) is a poor indicator of true progress and does not adequately measure people's sense of well-being. It measures only the activity in the formal sector, regardless of what that activity is. In consequence, current economic theory fails adequately to reflect the real effects of human activity within a finite ecosystem, and is used to 'validate' economic activities which are ecologically unsustainable and/or socially unjust.

Policy
EC311 The Green Party would therefore replace the conventional indicators with those that measure progress towards sustainability, equity and devolution.

Further clarification here

 

[pooka]

A useful thread. My two pennerth.

1. Markets are a given - they've been about for a long time and will be for the forseeable future.

2. Markets may be preferable to any non-market alternative, such as Soviet style command economies. Nontheless, in terms of delivering long term secuity for humankind, there are clear deficiences.

3. First, even in the terms in which they operate, they are far from text-book "perfect". There are disparities of economic power, and political power, between producers and consumers. Producers will, given chance, sytematically use their power to try to avoid the market economically (monopoly/monopsony behaviors, cartels and so forth) and politically (GAT, WTO, World Bank, IMF and the bankrolling of politicians best suited to their purposes).

4. Second, markets allocative efficiency is only in those terms which they recognise ie attributes on which some or all of the actors put value.

5. Attributes which are important to the security and well being of humankind may be ignored by markets because they are too far in the future (market mechanisms tend to short termism) or because they are asymetric between powerful and less powerful players (above).

6. All of which points to the need for some form of intervention by democratic institutions if optimality in terms of glabal well-being is the objective rather than sub-optimality in terms of particlar players (nations, corporations, generations).

7. The main difference of arguement on the thread seems to be (1) what form of intervention is needed, (2) by whom (3) it's likelihood of success.

8.nano seems to favour interventions which seek to mimic market mechanisms. The main arguments in favour of this are ones of allocative efficiency eg trading carbon or sulphur emmisions permits should result in least cost solutions for meeting particular global emmisions. But, just as command economies require someone clever enough to design the system, so market-style interventions require someone clever enough to set the standard in the first place and to do so free from political interference from the most powerful players - some hope.

9.The second assumption on nano's part is that the system will respond fast enough to pull through. We've already had examples (eg 1930's) where economic systems can crash and a lot of people suffer. We've also seen the political consequences of economic crashes eg the Weimar. Whaling offers a good example of how the short (discounted) time horizon of the market can fail to see irreversible disaster before it's too late. There can be no guarentee that we won't see something far worse, because of the pivotal role of oil but also because of the destribution of political power in the system ie some key players will be be inured from the consequences.

(incidentally, nano's support for any from of intervention distinguishes him from the neocon he is sometimes accused of being)

10. But neither do nano's can nano's antagonists offer any guarentees. Rationing, for example, requires just the same sort of omniscience as nano's market stylee interventions and the same level of indifferent integrity.

The truth is we have no fail safes, no panaceas and we should be very wary of anyone who peddles them. There are, however, some sensible things that are, on balance, more likely to do good than harm.

A. Redress the balance between democracies and corporations. Corporations have set the pace in globalisation - not surprisingly since they have developed most of the technologies on which globalisation has been based, especially in communications - and are now ahead of the game.

B. Reform and extend democratic institutions, nationally and internationally, especially those governing international trade

C. Muddle through. Howsoever, the going will get hard and the pain will be unequally shared - what's new?. Speculating how close we teeter to the brink is more crystal ball stuff than forecasting.

 

[Bernie_Gunther]

Markets may do something useful about oil/gas depletion, they may do things that are counterproductive. Markets, in Keynes' phrase 'Ape unreason proleptically' so who knows what they'll do.

My problem isn't with the idea that markets might have a useful contribution to make, they may; it's with anyone that appears to suggest, that markets are in and of themselves, reliably and certainly the answer to the problem of depletion, where the resource being depleted plays such a fundamental role in the functioning of our societies.

It takes ten units of oil energy to put one unit of food energy on UK tables. This isn't just about people driving slightly smaller cars.

I have a big problem with any doctrine that makes light of the fundamental questions raised by oil/gas depletion or suggests that it'll be solved by some form of continuing business as usual.

I don't read nano's contributions as suggesting that there is no problem because markets are a universal panacea, but his very passionate defence of markets in this context does tend to drag this discussion in that direction.

I think some more fundamental approaches may be required, and some of those would significantly benefit from public policy support. For example, fundamental structural adjustments are needed, I suspect, for agriculture to do its job in a world of depleted oil. These adjustments would tend to involve radical decentralisation of our food systems, bringing grower and consumer physically closer to reduce fuel costs. They also involve moving away from input-based agriculture towards one that recycles nutrients, especially Phosphorous.

These changes are at present ones that the agri-chem commercial interests and their representatives in government are likely to passionately oppose. Can you imagine for example, Science minister Lord Sainsbury giving his wholehearted support to a food security policy that takes us away from massively centralised supermarket chains (like the ones that made him a billionaire?) Or can you imagine what the very influential oil and chemical giants would make of an approach to nutrient managment that was largely decentralised and not profitable for them, despite being more sustainable?

Take a look at some of the policy changes implied by the following article (warning, pdf file) and see how you think a market largely optimised for maximally profitable laws & political decisions (i.e. the UK political system) would react to it, given free play of 'market forces' as they apply to such a system in our times.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

From BG's article:

Economy

Apart from the psychological effects, also purely economical effects of a closer cooperation may occur. Suppose cooperation with an associated farm is conducted as a subscription for food (milk three times a week, vegetables, eggs, pork for Christmas etc.). This will give the farm a local market, and a planning device.

Since the food bought in the shop today has a price that is about four times higher than payment to the farmer, a group of consumers can easily offer him a payment that is double the normal payment and still have a good deal. Even if the investment costs of the farmer, in the change of production from a mono-production system to a poly-production, will increase 50%, he will still have a large increase in salary (Figure 11). This is a typical win-win relation.

That the energy cost/dependency may decrease to about a quarter in this relation is not a drawback.

Folke also raises the important question of phosphate depletion and it's consequences.

Further information on the phosphate cycle can be found on the Natural History Museum site.


(passes Nano the pitch-fork. )

 

[Bernie_Gunther]

For the sake of discussion only, let's imagine that the case for the ruralisation approach advocated in the article I linked is proven as a necessary part of the strategy for dealing with oil depletion.

Given the starting conditions, how do we get to a point in the UK where that strategy is being applied effectively?

I don't think the magic power of The Market is going to do it, in fact I'd be surprised if market advocates didn't try to argue that it can't be a correct strategy because The Market won't do it.

I can't see any of the people who profit from centralisation giving support to decentralisation, in fact I'd expect them to be hostile.

In the section BB quoted, both the farmer and the consumer are getting a better deal at the expense of a bunch of people in the middle, who are mostly involved in the distribution & industrial processing aspects of our current food system, and those oil companies who sell them energy. Also being disadvantaged by ruralisation are property developers, estate agents and others.

So, could this scenario be brought about by market forces alone?

 

[Bernie_Gunther]

Just a quick addendum. It occurs to me that I'm going to be away and unable to respond to any comments on this thread before the weekend, so I thought I'd better say so up front.

My aim in the post above is not to prove that markets are crap.

I'm in effect proposing some remedial measures, the ones in the paper I linked a few posts back, as an example of the sort of thing it's likely we'll have to do, in order to provide food security in the absence of cheap fuel.

I don't dismiss the use of markets to get there, but nor do I think there is much chance of the present Markets (capital intended) being anything other than a hinderance, given that markets are about making profits and we currently have many vested interests, making profits out of the present way of doing things and well represented in the corridors of power (e.g. Sainsbury)

I'd be interested to see any and all ideas you have, on how the measures implied by the paper might actually be made to occur.

Even if they're not the right measures, they clearly address the concerns, so I think it's worth considering what they imply.

 

[nanoespresso]

Bernie, Bandit, pooka, and Adam,

your efforts to attract my attention and lure me into a fray have not gone unnoticed. Unfortunately I am currently hammered against a wall attempting to finish a paper for submission before an ever approaching deadline... thus you will have to wait a few days before you get a chance to find holes in my arguments, mock my logic, scorn my grammar, and otherwise insult my character.

I can't wait.

until then.. please continue as you were.

( psst bandit: put that hatchet back in the earth )

as my good mate abu would say.... "lot's of love".

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Small steps are being taken by producers and consumers towards building the relationships outlined in Folke's paper.

These take the form of 'Farmers Markets'.

National Association of Farmers Markets

The benefits in terms of lower financial cost to the consumers, as well as the financial benefits to the producer would seem to make this method of distribution fairly attractive.

Besides the obvious economic considerations, there are many other benefits:

The public can be confident of the origins of the foods, ask questions and get closer to the sources of local foods. The producers get valuable feed-back from customers. Farmers' Markets are for all kinds of food producers and offer a low-cost entry point for many farmers who have not 'sold direct' before.

The health benefits of eating fresh, natural foods are well documented and again have a positive effect on the demand for local health services, etc.

I recently read a study conducted at a school in the UK which decided to serve only fresh, locally produced organic food at mealtimes - the positive effects that this had on the behaviour of the pupils and the 'performance' of the school in general were astounding.

A similar 'experiment' was conducted in a prison environment with similarly dramatic effects in terms of reducing violent and disruptive behaviour.

(related article)

So even without the positive effects on food security and decrease in resource input the arguments are pretty persuasive for the adoption of localisation in food production.

So why do we hear so little about it?

I thought 'the Market' was supposed to promote 'cheaper and better'!

 

[anarchist606]

A couple of factors worth considering in the push of the UK towards a localised/rural economic system is debt and jobs.

As has widely been reported of late, UK consumers are amassed a huge debt bubble that’s now even beginning to worry the economic elite. Couple this with the exodus from the UK of the jobs (high-tech, call centres etc.) that were supposed to replace the last exodus of jobs (the manufacturing base) and I can see the set up conditions that could lead to a dramatic consumer crash. Given that consumerism is the engine of the economic system; could this not force a move towards alternative/informal systems and localisation way before the oil shock does?

 

[Bernie_Gunther]

Originally posted by anarchist606
A couple of factors worth considering in the push of the UK towards a localised/rural economic system is debt and jobs.

As has widely been reported of late, UK consumers are amassed a huge debt bubble that’s now even beginning to worry the economic elite. Couple this with the exodus from the UK of the jobs (high-tech, call centres etc.) that were supposed to replace the last exodus of jobs (the manufacturing base) and I can see the set up conditions that could lead to a dramatic consumer crash. Given that consumerism is the engine of the economic system; could this not force a move towards alternative/informal systems and localisation way before the oil shock does?

Interesting thought. When Thatcher did horrible damage to local economy in the town where I'm from (Birkenhead) the result was the swift growth of a black economy, which is still very much active even though unemployment is down from 80-90% to something more reasonable these days.

Keeping significant parts of your local economy well-insulated from any potential craziness in the global financial markets, i.e. in a black economy, may be a wise practice under these conditions.

A government, run by and for capitalists whose very business propositions are frequently based on a premise of cheap oil, is unlikely to regulate local self-help terribly well, while also trying to keep Monsanto, Sainsburys and ICI maximally profitable. So I think it's advantageous if some of this stuff can escape to a black economy.

It's also likely though, that major changes in our farming and food distribution systems would be enabled most effectively by certain positive government interventions. The thing that bothers me about this, is that I can't imagine any conceivable near-term UK government being able to make any positive decisions about this.

Our Science Minister is Lord Sainsbury, and Alistair Campbell's replacement's previous job was doing PR for Monsanto. These facts don't strike me as real confidence-boosters in this respect.

So my own feeling is that local efforts may occur in this sort of direction, but that central government will work against them.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Originally posted by Bernie_Gunther
local efforts may occur in this sort of direction, but that central government will work against them.

I was looking at Argentina as an example of localisation due to economic meltdown. I find some of what I've read is quite encouraging.

Although it provides some good examples of 'central government working against them', too.


Good old Petro-Capitalism, providing us with choices...


..'Starve' or 'Get your head kicked in'.

 

[TinyCrendon]

The lovely Rand Organisation have done some sterling work

http://www.rand.org - top report

and have prduced a report that basically says, oil prices will remain crazy, sod the public we're gonna have shortages rather than gluts, the market is brutally consolidating and consolidated and foreign companies should not be allowed to compete in the US refining market either because they have increased environmental protection or they dont have enough environmental protection...

 

[moon]

Originally posted by Backatcha Bandit


Wars will rage over the scarce resources that remain, so many of our children will probably have their innards rearranged with pieces of hot metal or similar whilst serving their country (joining the Armed Forces being, at least, a ticket to one 'meal' a day).

As 'humanity' begins it's inevitable demise, hordes of freezing, starving, desperate and bewildered people will roam the Earth burning eveything they can get their hands on, thus compounding the environmental disaster that is already beyond ignoring.

The few that survive all of that will most likely kill each other in the 'battle for survival' (just imagine how many gun toting peebees there are) fighting over any tins of dog-food that are left, sources of fresh water, etc.

You have travelled throughout the war torn, famine ridden regions of Sub-Saharan Africa too I see.

 

[Bernie_Gunther]

Useful links page I ran across recently.

Also an excellent and perhaps important, introductory article called 'The Party is Over' actually a book synopsis, but still a neat summary.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Excelent links page, Bernie.

Interesting link about North Korea's Upcoming Oil Boom - that answers a few questions...

-

BBC World Service are airing a seiries of programs entitled 'Pipeline Politics':

Press release here.

You've missed he first one (BBC are not archiving this), but the second (on Iraq) is on the program page (first link above) - grab it quick before it disappears.

Venezuela's Oil Coup on 29 September asks if there is truth in the rumours that America lent support to last year's attempted coup in Caracas.

(I think we know the answer to that one! )

The final programme, A Geopolitical Pipeline on 6 October, looks at cheap gasoline which has always seemed part of an American's birthright.

- HHJW - I was thinking of Camborne!

 

[grasshopper]

I'll echo BB's sentiments re the quality of the links page Bernie_G .

Nice one


I never knew previously about N Korean oil reserves. I would guess that they would share a geographical area with S Korean oil reserves, and judging by the size of the refinery, I would guess S Korea has been doing it for ages.

But there again, I knew knew S Korea was an oil producer either.

 

[Bernie_Gunther]

Originally posted by newharper
One of the unspoken reasons for joining the Euro, is that there is a movement among many Oil producers to start trading Oil in Euro's and that UK involvement (as a relevant producer) is essential.
Of the many upsides, it means that the US can't just going on printing money to pay for !! ( insert your own bogey), and would have to obey economic standards.<snip>

An interesting story popped up recently, possibly just a rumour, but Reuters has been reporting that the Russians are making noises about selling in Euros again.

This would be quite significant if it were to occur. I think Russia is currently in 2nd place in terms of volume of production and has the largest gas reserves.

 

[Bernie_Gunther]

What's a gallon of petrol actually worth? There's an interesting discussion of that question here along with another equally fascinating calculation about how much farming you actually have to do to replace petrol with bio-fuels.

The answer they come up with, based on the value of the human labour saved, is that the real work value of petrol is about $150 per gallon.

I'm sure one could quibble with the methodology, but it suggests to me an interesting way of looking at the 'markets will solve it' hypothesis.

I think that hypothesis assumes a way of looking at the world where the value of everything can only be measured by the market in that product. This is even used to justify productising things that weren't and shouldn't be considered products, in the name of promoting efficiency (a synonym for profitability here)

If someone comes up with an alternative valuation to that created by the market, one immediately wonders why is there a such a big difference between (even a fag-packet estimate of) what it's worth as replacement labour and what it's been worth at the filling station for most of our lifetimes? (it used to be lots more expensive relative to an average salary prior to WW2.

I'm sure we could also get to a high valuation of oil by adding to the pump price, the costs, presumably paid elsewhere, of for example the US/UK forces currently in Iraq and every other hidden cost of keeping oil at its present US pump price.

What I'm getting at here, is that a bit of calculation quickly tends to at least suggest, that the market is incorrectly measuring the value of this commodity, due to special political and military factors. This being so, presumably we have to ask, even if we think market mechanisms can fix this sort of stuff, whether they're working correctly in this instance, given those 'special factors' mentioned earlier and the disparity of these valuations?

 

[infobomb]

"Somebody please tell the president of the United States that whatever political and economic system we create, human beings cannot change the 1st law of thermodynamics. We can't create energy from thin air. "

Perhaps, with a little bit of invention, we can:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/RE/hydrogen_fuel_cells.html

 

[Bernie_Gunther]

Well, hydrogen is just another way to make a battery. You still have to get energy from someplace. Biofuels are at least getting their energy from a renewable flow, the sun, rather than a non-renewable store such as fossil fuels.

Here's some good stuff about flows and stores.

 

[infobomb]

Well, precisely: which, in our case, is a pretty inexhaustible source of energy, given that we are unlikely to stick around for the countless millennia before it implodes.

Anyway, I was kinda being facetious. My point is that there are alternative fuel sources that are coming closer and closer to being economically viable as mass-production products... Which is good, and which hopefully means that we aren't all going to die in an oil-starved purgatory of failed states and insecurity....

 

[Bernie_Gunther]

I agree that there have been hopeful developments. I'm still concerned though, that the political and economic status quo may be consitutionally unable to take measures to avoid large scale population die-off, let alone a smooth transition to sustainability.

The issue of food security is particularly worrying in this context.

 

[davekriss]

I don't have the time to hunt it down now, but I very recently read an analysis that calculated the land mass required to grow the bio-fuel equivalent of one year's energy consumption currently obtained from oil, and it turns out we would need something like 6.5 times the land mass of the earth. And don't forget that we'll need some of the available land to farm food. Meaning bio-fuel is not a substitute for oil energy as things stand today, regardless of the market economics.

(However, use of bio-fuel and other alternatives would supplement oil consumption, buying some measure of time for the human race to reorder itself.)

If anyone cares to hunt the article down, I think I found it on commondreams.org or at museletter.com... (when time permits, I'll go get it and edit this post).

 

[Bernie_Gunther]

Article about all this stuff just popped up on znet

This is the secret ticking time bomb under the feet of Dick Cheney and George W Bush. The US has 3% of world energy resources, but uses 28% of those resources, and the USA is no longer geographically situated to exploit them.